Agenda item

Darren Knight, Executive Director of People and Change (CBC) and Simon Graham (De Courcy Alexander)

The Executive Director for People and Change reminded members that in July 2019, Cabinet had declared a Climate Emergency.  Expertise in this area was lacking and as such Simon Graham, from consultants De Courcy Alexander (DCA) was brought in to support the council with this work.  Simon would assist with the development of an action plan and a report for Council in October and Cabinet in November. 

Simon Graham, the Head of Innovation at DCA knew Cheltenham extremely well, having worked for many years at local company Commercial Ltd, where he had implemented a very successful sustainability programme and was the first in the sector to achieve Carbon Neutral and Zero Waste. Business as usual would result in a slight reduction but this would not be sufficient to meet the commitment to be carbon neutral by 2030, which he felt was achievable.  Potential concepts which would result in greater carbon reduction, though this was by no means an exhaustive list, included:  reduction; generation; engagement of the wider community, and; connecting with other organisations.  Simon had met with major employers, including Gloucestershire County Council and Superdry to discuss what was achievable. 

·         Developing a ‘Cheltenham Standard’ using imagery of Cheltenham green spaces and cultural identifications would allow people to associate low carbon options with Cheltenham.  

·         A ‘Cheltenham Green Deal’, an investment fund that could be used within Cheltenham to achieve the carbon target through individual, community and collaborative action, would offer a funding mechanism.  He had spoken to finance and they had agreed that as well as having positive environmental factors, there would be the advantage of other social benefits. 

·         Cheltenham Energy.  Cheltenham already had about 20MW of installed renewable capacity and there was potential for far more, as had been done in other areas around Gloucestershire.  This would be an entity that would enable businesses and residents to purchase zero carbon energy, primarily from local sources. 

·         Did the council want to prioritise new build or retrofit.  Given the investment in new build this would be sensible, but Cheltenham had a large number of properties from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, which would require retrofit.  Simon had met with CBH and they had said that they would welcome guidance from CBC on this matter.   

·         With a target of 2030, he’d welcome steer on what level the interim (5 year) target should be, 50% or 75%.  He suggested that larger reductions would be achieved early on and it would get harder as time went on. 

Simon gave the following responses to member questions:

·         Measurements would be taken each year and he would consider it sensible to have revisit at appropriate times.

·         A demographically elected ‘Citizens Assembly’ would undoubtedly make it easier to defend the hard decisions that would need to be taken.

·         Behavioural changes were harder to influence and would therefore take longer to bear results.

·         GCC were inviting applications to a Climate Youth Assembly, with a deadline of midnight (19 Sept).  He felt that this was an important part of the process and that a joined up approach with partners could be useful.

·         The benefit of Cheltenham Energy is that it would be 100% green and available to purchase by businesses and residents, but it would soon run out and therefore it would be logical to partner with another supplier.

·         The concept of linking things that are bad for the environment with good outcomes e.g. parking income spent on the planting of trees, was a good one and the council seemed to want more ability to do that but were constrained rules imposed by central government or reliant on GCC as the responsible authority. 

Members made the following comments:

·         CBH were a key player and it was important that the council provided as much guidance and support as was needed.

·         The question of retrofit or new build was an important one, but there was also a question about whether the council should be building zero carbon homes at a higher cost, or a higher number of carbon neutral.  

·         Some political groups in the area might be more progressive then others and therefore there was a concern about establishing a joint assembly, where it might not be possible to agree on targets. 

·         Couldn’t one option be for the council to bulk purchase from a green energy supplier, which would cost more but be offset over many buildings and/or people.

·         Planning could generate very positive outcomes and though this would impact the developer, buyers would benefit from reduced bills. 

·         Subsidising bus fares would likely encourage more people to use it as a form of public transport, over a car.

The Chair felt that the fundamental problem was that those things that were killing the planet were those things that made life more comfortable and certain people the most money.  She felt that the carrot was always more successful than the stick but acknowledged that this was something that would need to be tackled in partnership with other organisations.

The committee thanked Simon for his attendance and looked forward with interest, to seeing the final report and action plan. 

No decision was required.